See, this is the kind of thing that explains why there's still so much creationism vs evolution debate. Rudeness. Toxicity. Yeah, sure, "it's just a joke", but to the people who honestly believe it isn't a joking matter. You're taking away their comfortable idea of heaven and shit on their "stupidity" in the process - hardly a way to win over anybody. So they stay religious, if only out of spite for toxic behavior.
@Gaytony Except they dont know god doesnt exist. They keep saying god exists because they have a book that says it is a holy book sent by god, and also it says god exists and is omnipotent and always right (never ever question him or his "plans".) Their evidence that god exists is as valid as me saying i have a Porsche parked in another galaxy. You probably dont believe it because it sounds improbable and i dont have anything i can show. Yet if i was called a prophet by a population of devotees you would call this a miracle. Creationists have nothing to show aswell. They make up more stories than they can make logical connections between them so everything they say contradict each other if you look deeper.
***** no he doesn't you can't prove that, and that's only your opinion and you are entitled to it but your 'not' entitled to your own set of facts. the fact is that it's none of your business so go away little mind and stop trying to lecture people
***** fool! if you are hearing things you better see someone about it lol it's easy to argue your point when you don't argue with any reason, so fuck off little mind and bug someone else ..by the way it's up to you to prove he does
I follow RD on twitter, you'll be hard pushed to find anyone who tweets more. Seems if you capture his interest, he will reply. If you have a genuine Darwinian evolution question, and you can't get a satisfactory answer elsewhere, I suggest tweeting him. Probably one of the most helpful, easily reached scientist, with an interest in furthering people's knowledge in his field of expertise on the planet.
@@bridurkin9840 You made some mistakes, here let me help... 1. The science community has debunked evolution. The evolutionism community refuses any evidence that exposes their religion for the cult that it is. 2. You confuse science and evolution. 3. Evolution is not science. Never will be. It is a debunked hypothesis. Post your best evidence for evolutionism and I will use science and debunk it. *HINT* No assertions, guesses, speculations nor assumptions will be accepted as "evidence". Evidence is observable, testable and repeatable.
Those are unique to Galapagos...marine iguanas. They are the only known iguanas that swim in marine salt water and even dive. Thus they are a marine reptile, like a turtle. Their only food source is the algae growing on the rocks underwater. All other iguanas live on land though some are known to swim to escape predators. Some have been seen to eat insects and snails.
Dominic Palmer Well, we colonised Mars in 2386. In 3027 we developed a propulsion system that carried us out of the Milky Way for the first time. We were able to scan the Andromeda Galaxy at close quarters. Of course in 3750 we colonised Planet Mensous, an oblate spheroid similar to Earth Mk1. We had a decade long war with the Sertain people of Planet Wex but finally defeated them in 3992. Since then we’ve lived in relative peace. And there’s no religion!
Ever take a real look at the shape of a penguin as they dive/swim for food? Compare the shape/form to that of a dolphin or shark, (and compare shark to dolphin if you'd like), hardly can notice a difference. Nature, or specifically natural selection will lead us down the path of least resistance (or in this case, drag), where it proves beneficial to do so. Cormorants with larger wings that had to take to the seas to swim for food likely had a more difficult time doing so, with more drag created by those larger wings, and perhaps were less likely to find adequate food that would sustain their survival (and thus the ability to pass on their genes via sexual reproduction).
So, to, may this loss of a larger wing have proven "logical" in the progression of natural selection, given no official "need" for flight-capable wings. No predators present on land or by air that they could hope to evade by being able to take flight, and no prey to be had/spotted from above that would've been more efficient/viable than what could be found by swimming about the borders of the islands. Now, could this loss of flight-capability become a detriment in the future? Absolutely it could. Should those food sources they rely upon in the coastal waters become scarce, these birds will face a selection pressure that may prove too difficult to overcome. But should some be able to overcome it, it may very well be an ability or another adaptation they have/develop over time that could allow a select few to survive and pass on their genes to subsequent generations.
Some Cormorant lose wing function because the dimensional diminution due to variable traits is not detrimental in some environments whereas it remains in others. the cousins who could still fly were no longer bound to the island. Only the flightless remained, so it was not necessarily an advantage to be flightless, but rather it was a survivable deficiency. A flightless sparrow in Virginia would immediately be spotted and eaten by crows. In the case of the Penguin, with the a continuum of annual nesting sites on Antarctica, they likely survived continental drift by progressively evolving bodies that adapted to gradual harshness in the environment. For them, flight wings would be impossible.
I don't fully understand what you have said, but from what I do understand I agree . The concept of the energy used to develop wings seems a rather stretch. Its in my opinion that the need the those appendages were not warranted and other adaptations may still be in development. I expect that the wings will be fully recessed in 1000 years with minor remains as with many examples. I wish I could be around to see then next environmental adaption as this world changes.
Exactly. And those with the larger wings may have faced a selection pressure against that larger wing, in the form of increased drag when attempting to dive/swim after prey in the coastal waters around the archipelago, resulting in less of the largest-winged cormorants finding adequate food for survival (and passing on their genes to the next generation).
I expect this has already been done, but I've never seen it: I like to think about how 100,000 years ago men wondered about the sun, the moon and stars, fire, the seasons, why fruit grew, what caused rain and lightening and snow, what clouds were, and a million other things that define the wonder of our universe. In the beginning, there was a panoply of gods - pretty much a whole different god for every mystery. Over time, one by one, we learned the scientific explanations for all these mysteries. We abandoned the need for a Sun god, a Rain god, a Harvest god, and so on. Fast forward to today: Today's theists accept that the earth is round, clouds make lightening, water vapor makes rain, and celestial mechanics cause the seasons. But every remaining mystery they STILL ascribe to magic. Can they not see the pattern here?!?!? How frighteningly primitive their minds! Yet they are allowed to drive cars, raise children and vote. :(
I can already hear the creationists scoffing that these cormorants "decided" to abandon flight. They just can't grasp the effects of natural selection over time. Reading the comments below it astounds me how eagerly and vociferously people accept "magic" over demonstrable science.
Dawkins knows this but didn't want to complicate the subject :- If an organ isn't selected for then it is automatically selected against. So if there is no selection pressure, random mutation will 'always' be negative : the organ will atrophy.
True; I wish he'd elaborated on this, and perhaps he did in a longer version of this time he spent there? The simple selection pressure against a larger wing that creates more drag when attempting to swim/dive after prey in the coastal waters likely led to selection against larger-winged varieties of these birds.
the regression of man is technology, you don't use it you lose it you don't think for yourself and let technology run its course. you tend not to function without it anymore
Here's something that bothers me greatly. Why does there always have to be music in the background. It make the video seem less serious, it's more difficult to hear the words, and, besides, I would prefer to hear the wind and waves like I would if I was there listening to the talk. I know that everyone does this these days, but here's a question for you. When Dr. Dawkins gives a talk to a group, does he request background music while talking? I suspect not, and the question is why not if it somehow improves the lecture. I would personally hate that happening, just like I hate it in the video. Ron King
Elijah, what you say is nonsense. I was more revealing my frustration with the use of background clutter that is everywhere these days, and it drives my nuts. It's now intruding more and more in news shows, documentaries .. everywhere. I just wish it would go away. Dawkins is NOT feeding anyone a line of bullshit. I don't know where you get that idea. By the way, I don't wish death on you, that's a little over the line.
Elijah, the reason I don't see what you call the BS is because I read, and I think. If that is what you are calling my sins, well, that's too bad. Education is a wonderful thing. Reality is all around you if you choose to look, and think, and analyze, and get some formal education in fields like geology, biology, astronomy, and so forth. It is FUN to learn and understand. Relying on books written when the various authors thought the world was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth, is hardly a reliable place to learn about reality.
Dawkins is wrong on one issue. Creationists can explain vestigial organs very succinctly: "God did it!" Sadly it is the reason why they can not be reasoned with. Everything comes down to God, and God can't be refuted, because God is a fictional notion that can be moved to swerve any curve ball.
God was designed so he couldn't be proven wrong. Science hasn't been too kind to that intent c'mon, you only see him after you die? It's such an obvious lie.
Creationists try to claim there are no vestigial organs. The appendix in Man plays arole in immunity, as do tonsils. These flightless birds use wings to swim. But the whole point means the organ has changed function, no longer doing what it did in other species. Is a penguins forelimb still a wing or is it better described as a flipper? All of this also knocks out the intelligent design argument of irriducible complexity. They say how can you have a partial wing providing a survival advantage...well just look at these commorants.
***** Nonsense. Adaptation refers to resilience within a single animal. I can adapt to being in a cold climate by putting on lots of fat. My genes allow for this to happen within my lifetime, by making behavioural changes (eating more calories). Adaptation does not mean all my offspring will also be fat because I chose to eat more. If some of my children were unable to put on fat due to some difference in their genes (mutation), then they would not do as well in cold climates, and potentially leave less offspring themselves. Over enough generations, genes with cold climate advantages become more common, those without become less common or even go extinct. That is all evolution is. There's no god in the process.
Escape judgement of what? Your dreamt up boogie man in the sky? That's very funny. However, if you meant the FSM, then I am quivering in fear at the coming of the great parmesan grater, which will cover the earth in 100 ft of pure, holy Parmesan cheese, as FSM sits back and laughs.
It would seem the wings don't cost much if you don't fly. But they may increase buoyancy quite a bit making it more efficient to have stubbier flightless wings if you dive for food.
chickens can still use their wings for a great deal of gliding/hovering/ assisted jumping/etc. You'd be surprised how far a chicken can travel in the air
What selective pressures would require chickens to need (or lose), their wings? You're going to struggle to answer this because chicken's have been domesticated, and thusly been subject to artificial selection. Farmers have raised (selected for) chickens that have large, meaty bodies, and that are less prone to disease. This increases their profits. Further, the large factory farms (like those Tyson and Perdue, among others) run, render the chickens unable to so much as turn around, much less take flight/glide, as they are confined to cages that only barely adequately contain their plump frames before they are machine-plucked and slaughtered.
Isn't the answer that the bird doesn't need large wings for swimming because the water supports its weight? So the wings are about the same size as fins on a fish.
Not to mention before humans arrived on Galapagos, there were no enemies on the land for this bird as well. Is this bird still using his "wings" under water like a penguin "flies" under water? Will those tiny wings disappear completely as evolution continues? Like with the Kiwi on New Zealand?
I don’t agree with this assumption. It might be the genetics problem in this flightless cormorants. However, this kind of sickness won’t affect its capability to catch fishes in Galapagos island. On the contrary, it made sick birds catch more fish than normal birds because the shrunk wings reduced water resistance on hunting. The sick family then dominates whole groups in Galapagos island.
Peter Kuan "Might be"? It isn't. Do you think that such a possibility has not been considered (in the Galapagos Islands of all places!) Why is the simple explanation so unpalatable?
When a man loses their scalp hair it means they don't have to eat too much in order to provide necessary nutrients to grow hair. That portion of hair is vestigial. Wait!! Don't you think it's more advantageous to have hair than not? Think about the scourging Sun! Just curious🤔🤔🤔
There's almost no selection at all there. It's just a random mutation that doesn't get selected off and stays. Here's why. Have you ever seen a bald 20 yo guy? Pretty rare right? My point is: we're supposed to live about 25 years, from that moment on, our "evolutionary warranty" expires. In other words, it doesn't matter what you do after you've successfully reproduced and raised your children, so who cares about your advantages and disadvantages at that stage? Just die already and let space and resources to the new generation (that's more or less the logic, unless you can still be useful somehow) That's why maturity age is tightly linked to lifespan. Rats become mature very early and they die soon after. (Whether you're an R strategist or a K strategist also influences it, but I don't want to make this too long) So yeah if you have a bad mutation that gives you problems that late in life, it's never gonna get selected off and deleted, because your offspring will keep reproducing, only later will they get a sunburn at the top of their head lol.
These birds are thriving in this habitat, hardly crippled. No more so crippled are these birds than you would be if I took away your wings, since you, nor these cormorants need them for survival (evading predators or hunting for food), since they have no predators present on these islands, and their prey is readily available in the coastal waters of the archipelago. So, much like you have no need for wings to get in a car and drive to the grocery store or McDonald's, the cormorants have no need for wings given the course of their evolution and the selection pressures they currently experience. Evolution IS amazing.
So vestigial organs means useless? Or does it mean used for other purposes like during swimming or for warming /cooling or maybe other things that we are yet to discover? I ask this because the vestigial pelvic/leg bones in whales, claimed as "useless vestigial bones", are actually necessary for survival/reproduction according to a study published in 1881 and several other studies as recent as 2014 that confirm this fact.
@@missionpupa "It refers to appearance than function." So, it has no obvious function. My point is that, sooner than later, someone will find out that the Flightless Cormorant never flew before. Also these wings have a necessary function which evolutionists are now claiming "evolution did it". God of the gaps of evolution.
Do you know why they have feathers though instead of fur. feathers are built for flight, also their beaks are used to fish, im fairly sure that they are not swimmers. @@zissac4780
@@missionpupa I have to do a deep dive into this to find out what the wings are for. They don't seem to use for swimming. More research is needed to find out the purpose. Not all birds are meant to fly. Also birds are not going to have arms, hence a wing :) Again more research is needed and I am not afraid to say I don't know yet but will sure try to find out. Possible reasons, changing direction while swimming, cooling/warming effect, attracting opposite sex or during matting. There is always a reason and I am not going to sit and say evolution did it, sorry :(
yea but you seem to be the one looking for god of the gaps, it looks like a bird, it talks like a bird, it has wings like a bird, but somehow you think it didnt fly, because of 1 trait. confirmation bias much. @@zissac4780
It's not a micro-mutation. There's no such thing as micro-mutation or micro-evolution. The word 'mutation' is a total misnomer in evolution. The best way to understand it is that the distribution of a feature in a population is a bell curve - some birds will have slightly longer wings, some slightly shorter, most of the population in the middle of the bell curve. The spread may only be very slight - a cm or so. However the birds with shorter wings have less drag in the water, so can hunt fish better and spend less time drying them after fishing. Their survival rate will be better than those with slightly longer wings, thus over time the bell curve shifts in that direction and the wing size reduces systematically over time. That is how evolution works. Given enough time, the change can become significant. In a million years, these "birds" probably won't have wings at all (assuming there is no actual use for the wings).
Micro mutation over millions of years is called evolution and changes species into subspecies. What you creationist struggle with is time. You can't grasp more than 1000 years.
@@boxingfocus And more drag in the water likely equated to more difficulty for larger-winged varieties to be as efficient/successful at hunting their prey while swimming/diving after them. I'm curious to know if these drag-related difficulties ever led to some of the larger-winged cormorants potentially drowning, too? Enough unsuccessful hunts may have led to desperate measures, attempting to swim/dive deeper/farther, pushing the envelope perhaps too far, and not being able to surface in time... interesting thoughts! Reading your response is hilarious because I've been responding to several other comments further up the thread as I've been scrolling down, then came across your response here and it reads nearly verbatim to several of my responses above 😅 ... cheers!
Dumb, a creationist can easily explain why. Because it is a bird and birds have wings. However it is designed not to fly. Hmmm any other birds without wings that are capable of flying? What is their purpose? BECAUSE GOD WANTS IT THAT WAY!
We don't ....and they could....all depending on the environmental pressures that they experience, in future. If a predator were introduced, for example, the cormorants might all just become extinct .....or only those with larger stubby wings might be able to survive by taking larger "hops" to avoid capture (only a suggestion on my part)- and only those with the longer of the short wings would survive and breed If the cormorant population,as a whole, became selectively longer-winged, over time (because only they could escape the predator and pass on their genes), full flight may become re-established at some stage, as the population grew longer wings - Evolution doesn't have "a plan" to either lose or gain wings - it just reacts to environment and breeding selection - and the changes that occur because of the exchange of genetic information between successful (but slightly different) breeding pairs - I hope I did ok there.
thetruthrover None - I meant it- Really refreshing for someone to ask a good question, without a secret agenda - and then reply to a response (altho' I can do sarcasm, if required, for weddings and barmitzvahs :))
Up until a few years ago, I was an active Jehovah's witness and I thought evolution was nonsense. During a hard time in my life I began studying my religion and the bible more critically, which has led me to where I am now...ROVING for TRUTH.
Are we trying to disprove evolution by , well , I guess de-evolution? So is the theory of de-evolution just the opposite of evolution. So when an animal or bird hits it's pinnacle (if that's even possible with evolution) and was a master of flight and a phenomenal swimmer like their brother Cormorant's . How many generations of the early flying cormorant's would have to have sat around on the island and not take to flight before they would have had all the other muscular bone structure changes that differentiate them to such a large degree that biologists that have studied them believe that they should be a classified as it's own subspecies. It's always interesting that when the fossil records and evolution theory of gradual changes taken place over ions of time doesn't fit the current thought , that this even more complicated physiological rapid change took place because at least 1000's of generations of cormorants just decided not to fly? This would also require the 1000's of birds to have the same mind set and all decide to pass down there rethought genetic code to their offspring or you would never loose what is an obvious advantage. As far as the wings ,their are sometimes used in swimming and it has to dry it's feathers just like their flying cousins because there not waterproof. Well , just maybe evolution fell short and only designed them to the point their at now. Or , possible their still evolving.
Trying to follow what you're saying here, but the most likely course of what these cormorants underwent (in terms of evolution), is that the larger-winged varieties faced a negative selection pressure due to increased drag created by those larger wings, while attempting to dive/swim for prey in the coastal waters of the archipelago. More difficult to obtain prey, less food, harder to survive, less large-winged cormorant genes getting passed. We must keep in mind that it isn't like there were just 2 different or 3 different "types" of cormorants way back before the modern version evolved (no small winged, medium winged and large winged varieties), rather a broad spectrum of wing sizes likely existed in a typical bell curve pattern over the population, and those with smaller sized wings were at an evolutionary advantage as swimmers/divers due to less drag on their bodies in the process of hunting their prey.
What's funny is that if the niche were to open up you couldn't rule this out as a possibility. Evolution could produce a fully seagoing bird of cetacean proportions.
But those cormorants don't look like the ones here in Australia , the ones in Oz are black and white and need wings to fly ,these Galapagos ones obviously just dive and swim , who says there not a different species all together , just like black men have bigger vestigial organs than white men .
I'm not an expert on the zoology of this island, or either of these exact species, but I am aware that this species of iguana dines primarily on an underwater algae that grows around the archipelago (as well as the odd insect here and there). Eggs apparently aren't on the menu, likely for other evolutionary reasons (maybe the eggs are just too big/hard to eat? /shrugs, I'll have to check it out
Birds that can't fly are the "squibs" of the bird kingdom. They probably jealously look at other birds that can fly and say, "look at them with their fancy wings, flying around all high and mighty".
Eh, maybe... but do they even "know" that they are "birds," to begin with? For how they locomote and transport themselves, they might as well be mammals (of the non-bat variety of course!), haha.
Still has something to offer in ethics and metaphysics........it is all bruggencate, gman, burns, btwn etc's fault you feel this way. Not all of it is bathwater.
but according to evolution, shouldn't they have just developed the ability to swim underwater with their wings? they don't even look good at swimming underwater. why would they evolve to swim badly?
Creamy Potato. DO they swim badly? I've not been lucky enough to see them swimming, but they clearly manage to reproduce successfully, which they wouldn't do if they didn't catch enough fish. And please remember that natural selection produces the illusion of design. There is NO intention. WTF should wings HAVE TO evolve into flippers every time?
@@alanthompson8515 idk they don't look too good at swimming to me, just compared to other swimming birds. you can just youtube them swimming you know? because they have wings you'd think they would use them. they've only been able to reproduce because apparently none of them decided to evolve and outclass the rest of them. The ones that would develop better swimming techniques would be able to reproduce MORE and over millions of years that group would take over the island.
Gee! I wonder will the creationist revise their " kinds " bullshit now or will bats still be bird kind and of course there is the penguin problem to deal with.
Best estimates for modern penguins is that they evolved to present form over the course of several million years, so it would be a *tad* longer than a few thousand for these cormorants to sprout flippers. Regardless though, that's not how evolution works... they can't hope to transform their nearly useless nub wings into flippers anymore than you can hope to transform your arms into wings; rather selection will continue to favor cormorants with small wings because there is no selection pressure (great enough currently) against smaller winged versions because they have no predatory concerns that flight would allow them to evade, and their prey is readily available in the coastal waters of the archipelago, so they have food sorted, which allows for adequate nutrition for mating and propogation of their species with phenotypes that are currently present (flightless wings).
That's what makes me laugh about this whole idea. "They (the bird, animal) doesn't use it anymore, so THEY decided that they didn't need it anymore and it just fell off or became inadequate." hahahahaha Yeah, and, I lost my hair because I just didn't need it anymore. hahaha
The birds don't decide shit. There's no magical force steering the thing. Please follow me for a minute. The only intelligences that are acting on all this are the intelligence of the predators (irrelevant here) and the intelligence of the females. That's the selecting sex, and you can be sure that when that lady gets covered in fish by the efficient bastard with small wings who's winning over every other cormorant who instead struggles swimming with the ridiculous buoyancy of their huge wings, the said lady will select - surprise surprise - the winner. But you don't even need that explanation, I mean if the mutated flightless cormorant parent is more efficient at fishing and 1 less chick starves to death every mating season because of this, with time you'll have an increasing percentage of flightless cormorants in the population because of simple statistics. Selection isn't magic.
@@tacitozetticci9308 Monty has decided to deny by refusing to even attempt to understand evolution. Seriously, this video alone is all of just over 2 minutes and the premise of his (Monty's) argument is a rebuttal of nothing Mr. Dawkins even said, nor that evolutionary theory says. Monty has chosen ignorance, so be it.
LOL this Richie lacks of logic, hahah if he cant see that the cormorant and the penguin is a bird of water, not of air, we can do nothing to rescue the common seanse to this creature
This common seanse you speak of, is not needed. Organs change purpose in many cases. Birds would've probably evolved feathers to keep warm, as that is a more immediate threat. Then they would've used them to climb or run faster. ruclips.net/video/JMuzlEQz3uo/видео.html Yeah that other guy left because of your pathetically hollow response and had better things to do but hey, try to squirm your God through the gaps left by this one.
@@xxxxxxcx156 let the creationists out of it for second , throughout the whole video , he was just like....telling a story that he believes it was true , why not show me some evidence , anything : skeletons , chemical or molecular level interactions ...etc , he talks and talks what he thinks it makes sense just by observation nothing more .
@@primeminister1040 there are many videos and reading about vestigial organs and parts, I bet if he explained it all like he has done many times you would say "oh but those are just theories and images show me the animal in real life"
Vestigial organs, it's the same reason creationists have brains
Hahaha :D
Holy s**t, This comment is old and yet it received only two comments!!
Now that's weird.
😂😂😂 so creative.
See, this is the kind of thing that explains why there's still so much creationism vs evolution debate. Rudeness. Toxicity. Yeah, sure, "it's just a joke", but to the people who honestly believe it isn't a joking matter. You're taking away their comfortable idea of heaven and shit on their "stupidity" in the process - hardly a way to win over anybody. So they stay religious, if only out of spite for toxic behavior.
@Gaytony Except they dont know god doesnt exist. They keep saying god exists because they have a book that says it is a holy book sent by god, and also it says god exists and is omnipotent and always right (never ever question him or his "plans".) Their evidence that god exists is as valid as me saying i have a Porsche parked in another galaxy. You probably dont believe it because it sounds improbable and i dont have anything i can show. Yet if i was called a prophet by a population of devotees you would call this a miracle. Creationists have nothing to show aswell. They make up more stories than they can make logical connections between them so everything they say contradict each other if you look deeper.
I love the way that Richard Dawkins explains concepts with clear, simple and straightforward language.
You can clearly see that in his Flights of Fancy, alas dedicated to a social media clown, to a charlatan.
@@kavorka8855 sad child
@@Bluebloods7 Why? I read Richard Dawkins and I have all his books.
@@kavorka8855 apologies, I misread!
Richard you are one of my most favorite humans, a wonderful person thank you for being you!!
mind your own business
*****
no he doesn't you can't prove that, and that's only your opinion and you are entitled to it but your 'not' entitled to your own set of facts. the fact is that it's none of your business so go away little mind and stop trying to lecture people
*****
fool! if you are hearing things you better see someone about it lol
it's easy to argue your point when you don't argue with any reason, so fuck off little mind and bug someone else
..by the way it's up to you to prove he does
you're not a nice person ..are you?
you sound like an extremist LOL oh! what's another name for extremist??
***** "My business is my Fathers business and He commands me to warn you of hell."
What else do your Father commands you to do?
Maybe in a few more hundred thousand years, those wings will be shaped more like fins to help them swim like a Penguin's.
Like a penguin's what?
*****
A penguin's wings? Penguin wings are really more accurately described as flippers O:
100%
explained like this way the undeniable truth is sooo beautiful...more of the same richard.pls.
These kinds of videos are my favourite!
I follow RD on twitter, you'll be hard pushed to find anyone who tweets more. Seems if you capture his interest, he will reply.
If you have a genuine Darwinian evolution question, and you can't get a satisfactory answer elsewhere, I suggest tweeting him.
Probably one of the most helpful, easily reached scientist, with an interest in furthering people's knowledge in his field of expertise on the planet.
Darwin has been debunked. Try science instead!
By whom?
The science community waits with bated breath to bestow great awards and accolades on this mystery person!
@@bridurkin9840 You made some mistakes, here let me help...
1. The science community has debunked evolution. The evolutionism community refuses any evidence that exposes their religion for the cult that it is.
2. You confuse science and evolution.
3. Evolution is not science. Never will be. It is a debunked hypothesis.
Post your best evidence for evolutionism and I will use science and debunk it.
*HINT* No assertions, guesses, speculations nor assumptions will be accepted as "evidence".
Evidence is observable, testable and repeatable.
Give me a name? LOL 😂
Still waiting for the name.
Great to see Richard out there.
Those lizards in the back are awesome. They just hang out there chill like they don't care Richard Dawkins sits next to them.
Those are unique to Galapagos...marine iguanas. They are the only known iguanas that swim in marine salt water and even dive. Thus they are a marine reptile, like a turtle. Their only food source is the algae growing on the rocks underwater. All other iguanas live on land though some are known to swim to escape predators. Some have been seen to eat insects and snails.
Mike Dobbs I know, I watched a bunch of videos after this. They have to swim to land fast or else they get cold and cant move.
Haha, you might be a little confused as to what one of those words means, Foghorn. "Otaku" isn't much of an accusation.
@@mikedobbs7968 wow,good research fam
It's rather a shame we even need to mention the ignorance of creationism in this day and age.
SaganNotPagan I can't believe I'm the first to like this comment in over 3 years.
I liked both comments. It’s March 4019!
@@deltanovember1672 ooo! what's it like ?
Dominic Palmer Well, we colonised Mars in 2386. In 3027 we developed a propulsion system that carried us out of the Milky Way for the first time. We were able to scan the Andromeda Galaxy at close quarters. Of course in 3750 we colonised Planet Mensous, an oblate spheroid similar to Earth Mk1. We had a decade long war with the Sertain people of Planet Wex but finally defeated them in 3992. Since then we’ve lived in relative peace.
And there’s no religion!
@@deltanovember1672 Delta November. You had me at 'colonised mars' but the no religion bit was really the cherry on the top.
Gradually becoming a Penguin type creature.
Or a slug
exactly what i thought.
Ever take a real look at the shape of a penguin as they dive/swim for food? Compare the shape/form to that of a dolphin or shark, (and compare shark to dolphin if you'd like), hardly can notice a difference. Nature, or specifically natural selection will lead us down the path of least resistance (or in this case, drag), where it proves beneficial to do so. Cormorants with larger wings that had to take to the seas to swim for food likely had a more difficult time doing so, with more drag created by those larger wings, and perhaps were less likely to find adequate food that would sustain their survival (and thus the ability to pass on their genes via sexual reproduction).
So, to, may this loss of a larger wing have proven "logical" in the progression of natural selection, given no official "need" for flight-capable wings. No predators present on land or by air that they could hope to evade by being able to take flight, and no prey to be had/spotted from above that would've been more efficient/viable than what could be found by swimming about the borders of the islands. Now, could this loss of flight-capability become a detriment in the future? Absolutely it could. Should those food sources they rely upon in the coastal waters become scarce, these birds will face a selection pressure that may prove too difficult to overcome. But should some be able to overcome it, it may very well be an ability or another adaptation they have/develop over time that could allow a select few to survive and pass on their genes to subsequent generations.
That place is beautiful.
Some Cormorant lose wing function because the dimensional diminution due to variable traits is not detrimental in some environments whereas it remains in others. the cousins who could still fly were no longer bound to the island. Only the flightless remained, so it was not necessarily an advantage to be flightless, but rather it was a survivable deficiency. A flightless sparrow in Virginia would immediately be spotted and eaten by crows.
In the case of the Penguin, with the a continuum of annual nesting sites on Antarctica, they likely survived continental drift by progressively evolving bodies that adapted to gradual harshness in the environment. For them, flight wings would be impossible.
I don't fully understand what you have said, but from what I do understand I agree . The concept of the energy used to develop wings seems a rather stretch. Its in my opinion that the need the those appendages were not warranted and other adaptations may still be in development. I expect that the wings will be fully recessed in 1000 years with minor remains as with many examples. I wish I could be around to see then next environmental adaption as this world changes.
What a crock of shit. In trying to sound 'smart', you sound like an idiot.
***** just too dumb to understand it maybe? He made sense, and is correct.
***** No he didn't. It was a bunch of nothing words made only to hook stupid people. And it looks like you swallowed hook, line, and sinker.
***** I generally admire people who "try to sound 'smart'". Often, if they try hard enough they DO sound smart.
What are you "trying" to sound like?
Awesome!Keep going with the bright job!
Fascinating stuff.
They also can be evolving into a rudder like device, moving through the water, the big wing just does not sheer water like a smaller one.
Exactly. And those with the larger wings may have faced a selection pressure against that larger wing, in the form of increased drag when attempting to dive/swim after prey in the coastal waters around the archipelago, resulting in less of the largest-winged cormorants finding adequate food for survival (and passing on their genes to the next generation).
I expect this has already been done, but I've never seen it: I like to think about how 100,000 years ago men wondered about the sun, the moon and stars, fire, the seasons, why fruit grew, what caused rain and lightening and snow, what clouds were, and a million other things that define the wonder of our universe. In the beginning, there was a panoply of gods - pretty much a whole different god for every mystery. Over time, one by one, we learned the scientific explanations for all these mysteries. We abandoned the need for a Sun god, a Rain god, a Harvest god, and so on. Fast forward to today: Today's theists accept that the earth is round, clouds make lightening, water vapor makes rain, and celestial mechanics cause the seasons. But every remaining mystery they STILL ascribe to magic. Can they not see the pattern here?!?!? How frighteningly primitive their minds! Yet they are allowed to drive cars, raise children and vote. :(
every remaining mystery they STILL ascribe to magic
magic is advanced technology
god is an engineer
@@nmarbletoe8210 then he/she/it's a really shitty one
@@Bluebloods7 Different goals than the usual engineer
@@nmarbletoe8210 yep, wonder where the hell, fire and brimstone in the name of "love" plays into those "goals" ... 🤣
@@Bluebloods7 idk, i'm not a brimstoner, more of a hippie stoner
Thankyou David, opps sorry, Richard. This was brilliant. More!
This shows very clearly how every species is a transitional form. We just take a snapshot in time.
There is no transitional species, because -they- we're all transitional species...
oh dawkins
I can already hear the creationists scoffing that these cormorants "decided" to abandon flight. They just can't grasp the effects of natural selection over time. Reading the comments below it astounds me how eagerly and vociferously people accept "magic" over demonstrable science.
Dawkins knows this but didn't want to complicate the subject :-
If an organ isn't selected for then it is automatically selected against.
So if there is no selection pressure, random mutation will 'always' be
negative : the organ will atrophy.
True; I wish he'd elaborated on this, and perhaps he did in a longer version of this time he spent there? The simple selection pressure against a larger wing that creates more drag when attempting to swim/dive after prey in the coastal waters likely led to selection against larger-winged varieties of these birds.
the regression of man is technology, you don't use it you lose it you don't think for yourself and let technology run its course. you tend not to function without it anymore
Here's something that bothers me greatly. Why does there always have to be music in the background. It make the video seem less serious, it's more difficult to hear the words, and, besides, I would prefer to hear the wind and waves like I would if I was there listening to the talk. I know that everyone does this these days, but here's a question for you. When Dr. Dawkins gives a talk to a group, does he request background music while talking? I suspect not, and the question is why not if it somehow improves the lecture. I would personally hate that happening, just like I hate it in the video. Ron King
Elijah, what you say is nonsense. I was more revealing my frustration with the use of background clutter that is everywhere these days, and it drives my nuts. It's now intruding more and more in news shows, documentaries .. everywhere. I just wish it would go away. Dawkins is NOT feeding anyone a line of bullshit. I don't know where you get that idea. By the way, I don't wish death on you, that's a little over the line.
Elijah, the reason I don't see what you call the BS is because I read, and I think. If that is what you are calling my sins, well, that's too bad. Education is a wonderful thing. Reality is all around you if you choose to look, and think, and analyze, and get some formal education in fields like geology, biology, astronomy, and so forth. It is FUN to learn and understand. Relying on books written when the various authors thought the world was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth, is hardly a reliable place to learn about reality.
Fantastic.
It crazy how few views these videos have! I gotsa get to sharing :)
Dawkins is wrong on one issue. Creationists can explain vestigial organs very succinctly: "God did it!" Sadly it is the reason why they can not be reasoned with. Everything comes down to God, and God can't be refuted, because God is a fictional notion that can be moved to swerve any curve ball.
Sure XD But if a inteligent designer exist, have no reason to vestigial organs exist.
Hey man, God works in mysterious ways... *facepalm*
Hahahahaha
God was designed so he couldn't be proven wrong. Science hasn't been too kind to that intent c'mon, you only see him after you die? It's such an obvious lie.
God did do it. By evolution.
Creationists try to claim there are no vestigial organs. The appendix in Man plays arole in immunity, as do tonsils. These flightless birds use wings to swim. But the whole point means the organ has changed function, no longer doing what it did in other species. Is a penguins forelimb still a wing or is it better described as a flipper? All of this also knocks out the intelligent design argument of irriducible complexity. They say how can you have a partial wing providing a survival advantage...well just look at these commorants.
***** Nonsense. Adaptation refers to resilience within a single animal. I can adapt to being in a cold climate by putting on lots of fat. My genes allow for this to happen within my lifetime, by making behavioural changes (eating more calories). Adaptation does not mean all my offspring will also be fat because I chose to eat more. If some of my children were unable to put on fat due to some difference in their genes (mutation), then they would not do as well in cold climates, and potentially leave less offspring themselves. Over enough generations, genes with cold climate advantages become more common, those without become less common or even go extinct. That is all evolution is. There's no god in the process.
Escape judgement of what? Your dreamt up boogie man in the sky? That's very funny. However, if you meant the FSM, then I am quivering in fear at the coming of the great parmesan grater, which will cover the earth in 100 ft of pure, holy Parmesan cheese, as FSM sits back and laughs.
FSM is real...I read it in a book, and that's good enough for me. You'll burn in a buttery al fredo unless you repent now!
***** Are you Gods judge of humankind?
***** adaptation is a mechanism of evolution you just admitted it exists you fucktard.
It would seem the wings don't cost much if you don't fly. But they may increase buoyancy quite a bit making it more efficient to have stubbier flightless wings if you dive for food.
The proteins dedicated to building the structure that would sustain flight of a bird of this size would be an extremely substantial cost.
Hello, are you an atheist ? .
What about chickens? the can't fly and they still have their wings. They have not turned into little stumps?
chickens can still use their wings for a great deal of gliding/hovering/ assisted jumping/etc.
You'd be surprised how far a chicken can travel in the air
Chickens are domesticated, in other words have been developed by selective breeding by farmers. They haven't arrived by natural selection.
What selective pressures would require chickens to need (or lose), their wings? You're going to struggle to answer this because chicken's have been domesticated, and thusly been subject to artificial selection. Farmers have raised (selected for) chickens that have large, meaty bodies, and that are less prone to disease. This increases their profits. Further, the large factory farms (like those Tyson and Perdue, among others) run, render the chickens unable to so much as turn around, much less take flight/glide, as they are confined to cages that only barely adequately contain their plump frames before they are machine-plucked and slaughtered.
Isn't the answer that the bird doesn't need large wings for swimming because the water supports its weight? So the wings are about the same size as fins on a fish.
Not to mention before humans arrived on Galapagos, there were no enemies on the land for this bird as well. Is this bird still using his "wings" under water like a penguin "flies" under water? Will those tiny wings disappear completely as evolution continues? Like with the Kiwi on New Zealand?
Hello, are you an atheist ? .
Wow it literally took me a minute to notice the iguanas.....
Another great flightless seabird was the great auk this is now extinct due to humans in a very short period of time magnificent bird
I don’t agree with this assumption. It might be the genetics problem in this flightless cormorants. However, this kind of sickness won’t affect its capability to catch fishes in Galapagos island. On the contrary, it made sick birds catch more fish than normal birds because the shrunk wings reduced water resistance on hunting. The sick family then dominates whole groups in Galapagos island.
Peter Kuan "Might be"? It isn't. Do you think that such a possibility has not been considered (in the Galapagos Islands of all places!)
Why is the simple explanation so unpalatable?
A genetic problem is just a mutation lol. Call it as you prefer.
A mutation can bring about positive or negative traits.
Your observation has all the hallmarks of an arrogant (autistic) child.
When a man loses their scalp hair it means they don't have to eat too much in order to provide necessary nutrients to grow hair. That portion of hair is vestigial.
Wait!! Don't you think it's more advantageous to have hair than not? Think about the scourging Sun! Just curious🤔🤔🤔
There's almost no selection at all there. It's just a random mutation that doesn't get selected off and stays.
Here's why.
Have you ever seen a bald 20 yo guy? Pretty rare right?
My point is: we're supposed to live about 25 years, from that moment on, our "evolutionary warranty" expires.
In other words, it doesn't matter what you do after you've successfully reproduced and raised your children, so who cares about your advantages and disadvantages at that stage? Just die already and let space and resources to the new generation (that's more or less the logic, unless you can still be useful somehow)
That's why maturity age is tightly linked to lifespan. Rats become mature very early and they die soon after.
(Whether you're an R strategist or a K strategist also influences it, but I don't want to make this too long)
So yeah if you have a bad mutation that gives you problems that late in life, it's never gonna get selected off and deleted, because your offspring will keep reproducing, only later will they get a sunburn at the top of their head lol.
Crippled bird. Evolution is amazing
it's not crippled, numbnuts.
These birds are thriving in this habitat, hardly crippled. No more so crippled are these birds than you would be if I took away your wings, since you, nor these cormorants need them for survival (evading predators or hunting for food), since they have no predators present on these islands, and their prey is readily available in the coastal waters of the archipelago. So, much like you have no need for wings to get in a car and drive to the grocery store or McDonald's, the cormorants have no need for wings given the course of their evolution and the selection pressures they currently experience. Evolution IS amazing.
So vestigial organs means useless? Or does it mean used for other purposes like during swimming or for warming /cooling or maybe other things that we are yet to discover?
I ask this because the vestigial pelvic/leg bones in whales, claimed as "useless vestigial bones", are actually necessary for survival/reproduction according to a study published in 1881 and several other studies as recent as 2014 that confirm this fact.
Vesitigal is defined more as a remnant of something that was previously there and more prominent. It refers to appearance than function.
@@missionpupa "It refers to appearance than function." So, it has no obvious function. My point is that, sooner than later, someone will find out that the Flightless Cormorant never flew before. Also these wings have a necessary function which evolutionists are now claiming "evolution did it". God of the gaps of evolution.
Do you know why they have feathers though instead of fur. feathers are built for flight, also their beaks are used to fish, im fairly sure that they are not swimmers. @@zissac4780
@@missionpupa I have to do a deep dive into this to find out what the wings are for. They don't seem to use for swimming. More research is needed to find out the purpose. Not all birds are meant to fly. Also birds are not going to have arms, hence a wing :)
Again more research is needed and I am not afraid to say I don't know yet but will sure try to find out. Possible reasons, changing direction while swimming, cooling/warming effect, attracting opposite sex or during matting. There is always a reason and I am not going to sit and say evolution did it, sorry :(
yea but you seem to be the one looking for god of the gaps, it looks like a bird, it talks like a bird, it has wings like a bird, but somehow you think it didnt fly, because of 1 trait. confirmation bias much. @@zissac4780
Talking evolution with a creationist is like trying to convince Al Capone to quit the bootlegging business.
A fine example of geographical micro-mutation
It's not a micro-mutation. There's no such thing as micro-mutation or micro-evolution. The word 'mutation' is a total misnomer in evolution. The best way to understand it is that the distribution of a feature in a population is a bell curve - some birds will have slightly longer wings, some slightly shorter, most of the population in the middle of the bell curve. The spread may only be very slight - a cm or so. However the birds with shorter wings have less drag in the water, so can hunt fish better and spend less time drying them after fishing. Their survival rate will be better than those with slightly longer wings, thus over time the bell curve shifts in that direction and the wing size reduces systematically over time. That is how evolution works. Given enough time, the change can become significant. In a million years, these "birds" probably won't have wings at all (assuming there is no actual use for the wings).
Micro mutation over millions of years is called evolution and changes species into subspecies. What you creationist struggle with is time. You can't grasp more than 1000 years.
@@boxingfocus And more drag in the water likely equated to more difficulty for larger-winged varieties to be as efficient/successful at hunting their prey while swimming/diving after them. I'm curious to know if these drag-related difficulties ever led to some of the larger-winged cormorants potentially drowning, too? Enough unsuccessful hunts may have led to desperate measures, attempting to swim/dive deeper/farther, pushing the envelope perhaps too far, and not being able to surface in time... interesting thoughts! Reading your response is hilarious because I've been responding to several other comments further up the thread as I've been scrolling down, then came across your response here and it reads nearly verbatim to several of my responses above 😅 ... cheers!
During Richard's time on the island, he too started to lose his wings and I'm sad to report that Richard can no longer fly.
Interesting.
Aren't those lizards aggresive btw? 0:47
Like many animals on the Galapagos Islands, Marine Iguanas are pretty chilled out.
Dumb, a creationist can easily explain why.
Because it is a bird and birds have wings. However it is designed not to fly. Hmmm any other birds without wings that are capable of flying? What is their purpose?
BECAUSE GOD WANTS IT THAT WAY!
How do we know they aren't developing wings?
We don't ....and they could....all depending on the environmental pressures that they experience, in future. If a predator were introduced, for example, the cormorants might all just become extinct .....or only those with larger stubby wings might be able to survive by taking larger "hops" to avoid capture (only a suggestion on my part)- and only those with the longer of the short wings would survive and breed
If the cormorant population,as a whole, became selectively longer-winged, over time (because only they could escape the predator and pass on their genes), full flight may become re-established at some stage, as the population grew longer wings - Evolution doesn't have "a plan" to either lose or gain wings - it just reacts to environment and breeding selection - and the changes that occur because of the exchange of genetic information between successful (but slightly different) breeding pairs - I hope I did ok there.
the Truthrover...thank you for your kind "like" It makes commenting and sharing ideas all worthwhile
Lol! Do I detect a bit of sarcasm?
thetruthrover None - I meant it- Really refreshing for someone to ask a good question, without a secret agenda - and then reply to a response (altho' I can do sarcasm, if required, for weddings and barmitzvahs :))
Up until a few years ago, I was an active Jehovah's witness and I thought evolution was nonsense. During a hard time in my life I began studying my religion and the bible more critically, which has led me to where I am now...ROVING for TRUTH.
apparently creationists have lost their brain xD
Are we trying to disprove evolution by , well , I guess de-evolution? So is the theory of de-evolution just the opposite of evolution.
So when an animal or bird hits it's pinnacle (if that's even possible with evolution) and was a master of flight and a phenomenal swimmer like their brother Cormorant's . How many generations of the early flying cormorant's would have to have sat around on the island and not take to flight before they would have had all the other muscular bone structure changes that differentiate them
to such a large degree that biologists that have studied them believe that they should be a classified as it's own subspecies.
It's always interesting that when the fossil records and evolution theory of gradual changes taken place over ions of time doesn't fit the current thought , that this even more complicated physiological rapid change took place because at least 1000's of generations of cormorants just decided not to fly? This would also require the 1000's of birds to have the same mind set and all decide to pass down there rethought genetic code to their offspring or you would never loose what is an obvious advantage. As far as the wings ,their are sometimes used in swimming and it has to dry it's feathers just like their flying cousins because there not waterproof.
Well , just maybe evolution fell short and only designed them to the point their at now. Or , possible their still evolving.
Trying to follow what you're saying here, but the most likely course of what these cormorants underwent (in terms of evolution), is that the larger-winged varieties faced a negative selection pressure due to increased drag created by those larger wings, while attempting to dive/swim for prey in the coastal waters of the archipelago. More difficult to obtain prey, less food, harder to survive, less large-winged cormorant genes getting passed. We must keep in mind that it isn't like there were just 2 different or 3 different "types" of cormorants way back before the modern version evolved (no small winged, medium winged and large winged varieties), rather a broad spectrum of wing sizes likely existed in a typical bell curve pattern over the population, and those with smaller sized wings were at an evolutionary advantage as swimmers/divers due to less drag on their bodies in the process of hunting their prey.
Perhaps this cormorant will evolve into something like a whale.
What's funny is that if the niche were to open up you couldn't rule this out as a possibility. Evolution could produce a fully seagoing bird of cetacean proportions.
But those cormorants don't look like the ones here in Australia , the ones in Oz are black and white and need wings to fly ,these Galapagos ones obviously just dive and swim , who says there not a different species all together , just like black men have bigger vestigial organs than white men .
What the hell are you blabbering on about?
Science explains reality in detail so people are educated in reality, creationists tell you to believe in fairytales and ignore reality.
Too much science deniers in the comments...
No surprise.
How come they've laid their eggs right next to the congregating lizards?
I'm not an expert on the zoology of this island, or either of these exact species, but I am aware that this species of iguana dines primarily on an underwater algae that grows around the archipelago (as well as the odd insect here and there). Eggs apparently aren't on the menu, likely for other evolutionary reasons (maybe the eggs are just too big/hard to eat? /shrugs, I'll have to check it out
Birds that can't fly are the "squibs" of the bird kingdom. They probably jealously look at other birds that can fly and say, "look at them with their fancy wings, flying around all high and mighty".
Eh, maybe... but do they even "know" that they are "birds," to begin with? For how they locomote and transport themselves, they might as well be mammals (of the non-bat variety of course!), haha.
Hello, are you an atheist ? .
Wow, massive video dump! Cheers big Rich!
I´m waiting for Sara Palin´s God-given insight on this issue.
At 1:03, if you squint REALLY hard, you can make out Russia in the distance!
Who needs philosophy when we have science....
Still has something to offer in ethics and metaphysics........it is all bruggencate, gman, burns, btwn etc's fault you feel this way. Not all of it is bathwater.
blueasblueis LOL! I was trolling you with my comment. Hello Blue!
demonorse
Well aren't you clever.
Science needs philosophy.
Why did Trump grow a head then, he doesn't use it?
It's a decoy...
but according to evolution, shouldn't they have just developed the ability to swim underwater with their wings? they don't even look good at swimming underwater. why would they evolve to swim badly?
Creamy Potato. DO they swim badly? I've not been lucky enough to see them swimming, but they clearly manage to reproduce successfully, which they wouldn't do if they didn't catch enough fish. And please remember that natural selection produces the illusion of design. There is NO intention. WTF should wings HAVE TO evolve into flippers every time?
@@alanthompson8515 idk they don't look too good at swimming to me, just compared to other swimming birds. you can just youtube them swimming you know? because they have wings you'd think they would use them. they've only been able to reproduce because apparently none of them decided to evolve and outclass the rest of them. The ones that would develop better swimming techniques would be able to reproduce MORE and over millions of years that group would take over the island.
Gee! I wonder will the creationist revise their " kinds " bullshit now or will bats still be bird kind and of course there is the penguin problem to deal with.
Sou ateu do brasil.
God hates wings!
come back in a few thousand years and i bet they will have turned into flippers.
Best estimates for modern penguins is that they evolved to present form over the course of several million years, so it would be a *tad* longer than a few thousand for these cormorants to sprout flippers. Regardless though, that's not how evolution works... they can't hope to transform their nearly useless nub wings into flippers anymore than you can hope to transform your arms into wings; rather selection will continue to favor cormorants with small wings because there is no selection pressure (great enough currently) against smaller winged versions because they have no predatory concerns that flight would allow them to evade, and their prey is readily available in the coastal waters of the archipelago, so they have food sorted, which allows for adequate nutrition for mating and propogation of their species with phenotypes that are currently present (flightless wings).
That's what makes me laugh about this whole idea. "They (the bird, animal) doesn't use it anymore, so THEY decided that they didn't need it anymore and it just fell off or became inadequate." hahahahaha Yeah, and, I lost my hair because I just didn't need it anymore. hahaha
I assume you don't understand the theory. I'll also bet you don't even understand what a theory is.
deception is not godly. repent brother
i'm not joking and I don't care about if you believe evolution or not
The birds don't decide shit. There's no magical force steering the thing.
Please follow me for a minute.
The only intelligences that are acting on all this are the intelligence of the predators (irrelevant here) and the intelligence of the females.
That's the selecting sex, and you can be sure that when that lady gets covered in fish by the efficient bastard with small wings who's winning over every other cormorant who instead struggles swimming with the ridiculous buoyancy of their huge wings, the said lady will select - surprise surprise - the winner.
But you don't even need that explanation, I mean if the mutated flightless cormorant parent is more efficient at fishing and 1 less chick starves to death every mating season because of this, with time you'll have an increasing percentage of flightless cormorants in the population because of simple statistics.
Selection isn't magic.
dumb child
@@tacitozetticci9308 Monty has decided to deny by refusing to even attempt to understand evolution. Seriously, this video alone is all of just over 2 minutes and the premise of his (Monty's) argument is a rebuttal of nothing Mr. Dawkins even said, nor that evolutionary theory says. Monty has chosen ignorance, so be it.
Why do people get so defensive about their religion? It’s crazy how much faith these religious people have...
I’m talking about evolution.
sad child
LOL this Richie lacks of logic, hahah if he cant see that the cormorant and the penguin is a bird of water, not of air, we can do nothing to rescue the common seanse to this creature
Kevin Aura lol, are you an answering machine, press 1 for god of the gaps, press 2 for talking nonse press 3 for other talking points
This common seanse you speak of, is not needed. Organs change purpose in many cases. Birds would've probably evolved feathers to keep warm, as that is a more immediate threat. Then they would've used them to climb or run faster. ruclips.net/video/JMuzlEQz3uo/видео.html
Yeah that other guy left because of your pathetically hollow response and had better things to do but hey, try to squirm your God through the gaps left by this one.
He sounds like a storyteller, just making assumptions without actual EVIDENCE at all .
I think you meant creationists, they make up a lot of ridiculous stuff like men being made from dust when in reality humans are 60% water
@@xxxxxxcx156 let the creationists out of it for second , throughout the whole video , he was just like....telling a story that he believes it was true , why not show me some evidence , anything : skeletons , chemical or molecular level interactions ...etc , he talks and talks what he thinks it makes sense just by observation nothing more .
@@primeminister1040 there are many videos and reading about vestigial organs and parts, I bet if he explained it all like he has done many times you would say "oh but those are just theories and images show me the animal in real life"
@@primeminister1040
sad child